[General] HA: Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED

Mon Oct 18 09:48:03 PDT 2021

Dear Jarek

I postulate that the *electron is a point-particle *("in the case of the
Helical Electron Model, the geometric static ring is replaced by a dynamic
point-like electron. In this dynamic model, the electron’s ring has no
substance or physical properties. It need not physically exist. It is
simply the path of the CC around the CM.")

A point-particle cannot be divided, then it is natural for a point-particle
to be a quantum of charge. If you postulate an extended-particle, then you
have to responde two important questions: (1) Why can't the particle
divide? And what force holds the different parts of the extende-particle
together? poincare stress forces?  These questions have a obvious answer in
the case of point-particles, but they have a very difficult explanation in
the case of extended-particles.

On the other hand, point-particles have their own problems. Mainly
infinit-mass-density and infinit-charge-density.

Infinit-mass-density is not a problem in a dynamic-point-particle model
because "The CC has no mass, so it can have an infinitesimal size without
collapsing into a black hole, and it can move at the speed of light without
violating the theory of relativity. The electron’s mass is not a single
point. Instead, it is distributed throughout the electromagnetic field. The
electron’s mass corresponds to the sum of the electron’s kinetic and
potential energy. By symmetry, the CM corresponds to the center of the
electron’s ring.".

The infinit-charge-density is a more complex problem, because it imply an
infinit electromagnetic energy at that point. This is just the problem with
infinits that QED try to resolve using illegitime renormalizacion.

My hypothesis is that there is a weak in the Maxwell's laws. Maxwell
discovered its laws before he knew that electric charge was quantized.
There is an alternative to Maxwell's laws proposed by Weber that allow
electromagnetic point-particles without singularities (
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/  or
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10082.pdf). Weber's Electrodynamics have their
own problems but it shows the way in which an improved version of Maxwell's
laws should be sought.

Best wishes
Oliver Consa

El sáb, 16 oct 2021 a las 20:25, Jarek Duda (<dudajar at gmail.com>) escribió:

> Dear Oliver,
>
> Thank you for the interesting article, great motivation - I didn't know
> about it.
>
> I see you emphasize Gouanère"A Search for the de Broglie Particle
> Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling" electron clock confirmation
> paper - I also believe is extremely important.
>
>
> Regarding your electron model as toroidal, the g-factor agreement is
> indeed spectacular - I will think about it. I am just working on electron
> ansatz and it seems to require some spin precession/nutation.
>
> The main initial remarks:
>
> - shouldn't such solenoid have mass density per length? Electron has very
> concrete 511keV mass, couldn't yours have various? (I rather reserve such
> shape e.g. for 3 neutrinos),
>
> - the most basic interaction for electron is Coulomb - how would you like
> to get it? Why charge is quantized - e.g. no half-electron?
>
> - there is very strong experimental confidence that electron is nearly
> point-like (some gathered:
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron
> ) - yours is much more complex, what might be crucial objection.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jarek
>
>
> W dniu 16.10.2021 o 19:40, oliver consa pisze:
>
> Dear Alexander,
>
> Thank you very much for your interest in this paper.
>
> In my paper "Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron" (
> http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF),  I proposed an electron
> model in which the g-factor appeared as a direct consequence  from its
> geometry. As a result I got a g-factor value of g = sqrt (1+ alpha / pi) =
> 1.0011607. This result is consistent with the Schwinger factor, and it
> offers a value much closer to the experimental value.
>
> One criticism I received, is that it was invalid because the QED predicted
> a much more accurate result. From there I tried to understand how the
> calculation was carried out in the QED to transfer the ideas to my model.
> But to my surprise I found out that all the QED calculations are bullshit.
> I kept investigating and everything I found continued to confirm my
> suspicions. In the end I was encouraged to publish this article.
>
> My conclusion is that the quantization of the electromagnetic field is an
> incorrect hypothesis that only leads to infinite results.
>
> Best wishes,
> Oliver Consa
>
> El vie, 15 oct 2021 a las 9:55, Burinskii A.Ya. (<bur at ibrae.ac.ru>)
> escribió:
>
>> Dear Oliver,
>>
>> Thank you very much for new version of your article.
>> It is very interesting, and I expect to cite it in my further publication.
>> I am working now for a stringy version of the Dirac electron as a
>> Kerr-Newman black hole.
>> What is your opinion about the point that anomalous magnetic momentum
>> is result of interaction of the electron with external  em field, and
>> thus,
>> it is not proper electron's magnetic momentum.
>>
>> Best regards, Alexander
>>
>> ________________________________
>> От: oliver consa [oliver.consa at gmail.com]
>> Отправлено: 10 октября 2021 г. 13:06
>> Кому: oliver consa
>> Тема: [General] Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED
>>
>>
>> Dear colleague,
>>
>>
>> I am sending you this paper because I am convinced will be of interest to
>> you:
>>
>>
>> Something is wrong in the state of QED
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078
>>
>>
>> “Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in
>> the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single
>> experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron
>> (g-factor). An examination of the history of QED reveals that this value
>> was obtained in a very suspicious way. These suspicions include the case of
>> Karplus & Kroll, who admitted to having lied in their presentation of the
>> most relevant calculation in the history of QED. As we will demonstrate in
>> this paper, the Karplus & Kroll affair was not an isolated case, but one in
>> a long series of errors, suspicious coincidences, mathematical
>> inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug.”
>>
>>
>>
>> This paper raises important questions about the validity and legitimacy
>> of the QED. I believe that it is a topic that deserves a greater diffusion
>> and a public debate.
>>
>>
>> It is an improved and corrected version of a popular previous paper
>> published by me on Vixra. The information has been expanded and corrected,
>> much more respectful language has been used, and most subjective
>> interpretations of the facts have been eliminated.
>>
>>
>> I hope you enjoy it
>>
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>
>> Oliver Consa
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at oliver.consa at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at dudajar at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dudajar%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dudajar%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> --
> dr Jarosław Duda
> Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
> Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Polandhttp://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Models of particles" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to models-of-particles+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211018/8dd9f0ed/attachment.html>